Guest guest Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 Not in keeping with the natural plumbing? So because I have a womb, every sexual encounter I have needs to have procreation as its intended outcome or it's unnatural? Calling homosexual behavior " degenerate " and " unnatural " is insensitive and thoughtless hate-speech, pure and simple, no matter how cutesy the smiley-faces are that you put with it. People to this day are harassed, abused, and killed, socially rejected, arrested, and otherwise discriminated against for demonstrating homosexual behavior, so I don't think it's too much to ask that people choose their language much more carefully when referring to one-tenth of the population PLUS all those who have expanded their own realm of sexual attraction to include both sexes. Jane Rowland <classicalwriter@...> wrote: >>Well, my thought is that you seem to be implying that homosexual behavior is degenerate and unnatural.>> I suppose it would have to be " de-generate " in that gays cannot procreate, or generate, and unnatural in that it is not in keeping with the natural plumbing of the individual. No offense meant, Im sure on Ishtr's part. jane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 Jane, > I think it makes perfect sense. Poor nutrition, part. the ingestion of high > amounts of phytoestrogens and anything that would disrupt the endocrine > system is going to disturb the hormone cascade. More estrogen in males, more > feminine attributes, also more *deviant* behavior, deviant in that it > DEVIATES from what a healthy hormonal response would be, given healthy > hromones. > This is not about homo rights, but hormones, behavior and diet, period. Then will you please come up with some shred of evidence that increased estrogen or phytoestrogens is actually involved in homosexuality rather than exploiting the intuitive non-science-based association between estrogen, femininity and male homosexuality? When we discussed this elsewhere I did a very quick search of the issue with the three most recent results in pubmed to find that LOW estrogen is associated with homosexuality in sheep, high TESTOSTERONE exposure in utero is associated with homosexuality in male humans judged by finger length, and a review of the past literature concluding that no consistent association between hormones and homosexuality in humans has been established from the research after hundreds of studies. If this is academic, make it academic and let's see some evidence. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 Kind of off the subject but something I have been wondering about for some time. Can too much estrogen make females more masculine? Reading about how much estrogen type compounds we are consuming daily, from soy, from plastics, from pesticides, dairy, and God knows what they put in our meat, it sure seems to me, as a woman of almost 47 years that women are getting more agressive and men are almost getting feminine I have noticed over the last 4 or 5 years that most drivers who are speeding and driving reckless are young women. Most Sunday driversare men. I see more women driving and men in the passenger seat, which wasn't seen in my time. Women are getting much more in your face and lacking what used to be considered the normal social graces, whereas men, who used to take pride in being the bread winners are now happy to live at home with thier parents till thier 40's or longer or sponge off thier girlfriends. Things that would have not been seen 30 years ago. Some of this I'm sure is social, things that are being taught in school, style changes, things they see on tv, etc. But I can't believe in my time I have seen such a shift, plus men preening themselves, almost like women. Maybe I'm just an ancient relic but I have to wonder what all these hormones are doing to both the males and females and if there is any correlation. And if so I wonder what the young men and women will be like 50 years from now. Lorie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 >>Then will you please come up with some shred of evidence that increased estrogen or phytoestrogens is actually involved in homosexuality rather than exploiting the intuitive non-science-based association between estrogen, femininity and male homosexuality?>> You mean " actually involved " in sexual *identification*? Are you kidding? Hormones and sexuality connected. Absurd, of course! No one's exploiting young Masterjohn, only exploring.(Forgive me, I assume you are very, very young. You may be quite old in fact.) It's a discussion an exploration, not an Inquisition. It's an academic question in that we are discussing a theoretical connection observed by a scientist,you know, like happens in an academic environment, one with no lab. Try to keep in mind that we are discussing *cats* not anyone close to you or perhaps you, so its not personal. Anyway, i was just defending Ishtr's right to raise the question. We all know you're thorough, but should your self-admitted " very quick " research on the subject have a chilling effect on those who would like to explore a possibility, one based upon empirical evidence of a respected scientist, I might add? About cats? Gay cat's rights already? It's a bit soon, I venture. >>>When we discussed this elsewhere I did a very quick search of the issue with the three most recent results in pubmed to find that LOW estrogen is associated with homosexuality in sheep, high TESTOSTERONE exposure in utero is associated with homosexuality in male humans judged by finger length, and a review of the past literature concluding that no consistent association between hormones and homosexuality in humans has been established from the research after hundreds of studies.>>> Oh well then, the issue's settled. Go home folks...nothing more to see here. Since your search was " very quick " then I would hardly call it conclusive and a reason to end the discussion if hard evidence cant be provided. We're not all scientists, although that does give you a decided advantage... well, somewhat. Sometimes, all that lab work can really limit the ability to think outside the litter box. For example, your second example contradicts your third and only strengthens the argument that hormones affect sexual behavior. Additionally, " no consistent association " does not deny " association " in any number of instances. Plus, Im not touching (no pun intended) any findings about male homosexuality based upon a " finger length " test. It's just wrong. Heh. >>If this is academic, make it academic and let's see some evidence. Only evidence I have is what Pottenger reveals. Seems worth discussing unless you write him off as a quack. I would love to see the evidence that says there is no correlation of any type between hormones and sexual behavior - but I suppose you wish to dissect homosexuality(in cats, again) from the actual desire for the act? I dunno. Maybe some boy cats have bad eyesight, or other boy cats are tired of the streets,or some boy cats are more progressive and enlightened. Who can say? Jane, having more fun than should be allowed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 > > > > >>> >>Then will you please come up with some shred of evidence that > increased estrogen or phytoestrogens is actually involved in > homosexuality rather than exploiting the intuitive non-science-based > association between estrogen, femininity and male homosexuality?>> > > ³You mean " actually involved " in sexual *identification*? Are you > kidding? Hormones and sexuality connected. Absurd, of course! > > No one's exploiting young Masterjohn, only exploring.(Forgive me, I > assume you are very, very young. You may be quite old in fact.) > > It's a discussion an exploration, not an Inquisition. It's an > academic question in that we are discussing a theoretical connection > observed by a scientist,you know, like happens in an academic > environment, one with no lab.² > > So, all such explorations, are, by definition, solely in the spriit of > science, and cannot have any underlying prejudicial assumptions? So, those > scientists who researched the mental inferiority of blacks (names....Jensen > and someone else?) - there were no underlying assumptions there, of course. > There is a French academic (Faurisson?) who is a Nazi revisionist. His > research, of course, cannot be fundamentally bigoted. > > People like you absolutely disgust me. I don¹t care if this sounds personal. > On a public forum, someone implies that homosexuals are engaging in unnatural, > Œdegenerate¹ behavior, and people jump on the bandwagon, insisting that it is > just an academic question being raised. And I am the only person who objects > to this? At least who is much younger than you in all probability, but > thousands of times more intelligent, has the patience to point out errors  I > have no such patience. > > I don¹t see much difference between the questions raised a few weeks ago about > diet being able to ward off various serious diseases. This is offered in the > same spirit, in the guise of serious scientific inquiry. It would be > hilarious, if it didn¹t exemplify why homosexuals (blacks, women, jews) have > historically been dehumanized. > > There is such a thread of hateful ignorance that permeates this list. I read > it because the nutritional issues interest me, and people like for all > of my historical disagreements with him, have interesting things to say on the > matter, and have researched these issues in far more depth than I ever will. > But I absolutely cannot help calling out a bigot when I see one. > > Try to keep in mind that we are discussing *cats* not anyone close to > you or perhaps you, so its not personal. > > Anyway, i was just defending Ishtr's right to raise the question. We > all know you're thorough, but should your self-admitted " very quick " > research on the subject have a chilling effect on those who would like > to explore a possibility, one based upon empirical evidence of a > respected scientist, I might add? About cats? Gay cat's rights > already? It's a bit soon, I venture. > >>>> >>>When we discussed this elsewhere I did a very quick search of the > issue with the three most recent results in pubmed to find that LOW > estrogen is associated with homosexuality in sheep, high TESTOSTERONE > exposure in utero is associated with homosexuality in male humans > judged by finger length, and a review of the past literature > concluding that no consistent association between hormones and > homosexuality in humans has been established from the research after > hundreds of studies.>>> > > Oh well then, the issue's settled. Go home folks...nothing more to see > here. > > Since your search was " very quick " then I would hardly call it > conclusive and a reason to end the discussion if hard evidence cant be > provided. We're not all scientists, although that does give you a > decided advantage... well, somewhat. Sometimes, all that lab work can > really limit the ability to think outside the litter box. > > For example, your second example contradicts your third and only > strengthens the argument that hormones affect sexual behavior. > Additionally, " no consistent association " does not deny " association " > in any number of instances. > > Plus, Im not touching (no pun intended) any findings about male > homosexuality based upon a " finger length " test. It's just wrong. Heh. > >>> >>If this is academic, make it academic and let's see some evidence. > > Only evidence I have is what Pottenger reveals. Seems worth discussing > unless you write him off as a quack. I would love to see the evidence > that says there is no correlation of any type between hormones and > sexual behavior - but I suppose you wish to dissect homosexuality(in > cats, again) from the actual desire for the act? I dunno. Maybe some > boy cats have bad eyesight, or other boy cats are tired of the > streets,or some boy cats are more progressive and enlightened. Who can > say? > > Jane, having more fun than should be allowed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 > > Sorry  my email just doesn¹t put in the quotations sometimes, and I forgot > to clarify who said what. My post below (obviously) ends as below: > > >>> >>Then will you please come up with some shred of evidence that > increased estrogen or phytoestrogens is actually involved in > homosexuality rather than exploiting the intuitive non-science-based > association between estrogen, femininity and male homosexuality?>> > > ³You mean " actually involved " in sexual *identification*? Are you > kidding? Hormones and sexuality connected. Absurd, of course! > > No one's exploiting young Masterjohn, only exploring.(Forgive me, I > assume you are very, very young. You may be quite old in fact.) > > It's a discussion an exploration, not an Inquisition. It's an > academic question in that we are discussing a theoretical connection > observed by a scientist,you know, like happens in an academic > environment, one with no lab.² > > So, all such explorations, are, by definition, solely in the spriit of > science, and cannot have any underlying prejudicial assumptions? So, those > scientists who researched the mental inferiority of blacks (names....Jensen > and someone else?) - there were no underlying assumptions there, of course. > There is a French academic (Faurisson?) who is a Nazi revisionist. His > research, of course, cannot be fundamentally bigoted. > > People like you absolutely disgust me. I don¹t care if this sounds personal. > On a public forum, someone implies that homosexuals are engaging in unnatural, > Œdegenerate¹ behavior, and people jump on the bandwagon, insisting that it is > just an academic question being raised. And I am the only person who objects > to this? At least who is much younger than you in all probability, but > thousands of times more intelligent, has the patience to point out errors  I > have no such patience. > > I don¹t see much difference between the questions raised a few weeks ago about > diet being able to ward off various serious diseases. This is offered in the > same spirit, in the guise of serious scientific inquiry. It would be > hilarious, if it didn¹t exemplify why homosexuals (blacks, women, jews) have > historically been dehumanized. > > There is such a thread of hateful ignorance that permeates this list. I read > it because the nutritional issues interest me, and people like for all > of my historical disagreements with him, have interesting things to say on the > matter, and have researched these issues in far more depth than I ever will. > But I absolutely cannot help calling out a bigot when I see one. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 Jane, > >Then will you please come up with some shred of evidence that > >increased estrogen or phytoestrogens is actually involved in > >homosexuality rather than exploiting the intuitive non-science-based > >association between estrogen, femininity and male homosexuality?>> > You mean " actually involved " in sexual *identification*? Are you > kidding? Hormones and sexuality connected. Absurd, of course! What is absurd is that there are over 350 studies on the relationship between hormones and sexuality indexed for PubMed and that rather than look into it and see if there is any established connection for a hormonal cause for homosexuality, those who advocate this position simply refuse to look for any of it and nevertheless continue to appeal to popular prejudice about hormones and popular prejudice about sexuality such as estrogen's association with women and therefore femininity, and male homosexuality's association with femininity. This is not science, but appeals to intuitive concepts that are in some ways not even correct. Estrogen is essential for bone-building in men and women, but no one thinks that homosexuality must be caused by estrogen because homosexuals have such strong bones. But it is very easy to allude to the common perception that estrogen is a woman's hormone and that women are feminine and that gay men are either feminine or woman-like. > No one's exploiting young Masterjohn, only exploring.(Forgive me, I > assume you are very, very young. You may be quite old in fact.) > It's a discussion an exploration, not an Inquisition. It's an > academic question in that we are discussing a theoretical connection > observed by a scientist,you know, like happens in an academic > environment, one with no lab. No, it isn't like a scientific discussion because it keeps persisting without any attempt to look at the evidence that is already there. I provided a random sample of studies on homosexuality and hormones on the other list we had this discussion on that all refuted the notion of high estrogen causing homosexuality so I would think that it would be the turn of the folks taking the opposite position to find some supportive research. Obviously you would be completely justified in presenting the hypothesis if it hadn't already been studied; however, since there are hundreds of studies on the issue it behooves one purporting to engage in an acadmemic discussion to do the acadmic thing and look at the research that's out there. To do so isn't to wage an inquisition. It's to follow the normal process of logical reasoning. I'm quite happy to look at some evidence that estrogen is causing homosexuality, but I think it's quite anti-scientific for folks to keep repeating that it is probably true because it is so obvious rather than to look at whether the existing research might support or refute the notion. > Try to keep in mind that we are discussing *cats* not anyone close to > you or perhaps you, so its not personal. I don't have any personal issue at all with homosexuality. If Pottenger observed homosexuality I think that's interesting and I'd like to see a good description of it and I'd like to see if it could be replicated by other researchers. I don't, however, take Pottenger's assumptions about what cats do in the wild to have any validity unless someone can explain what type of experience Pottenger had examining animals in the wild and convince me that this statement was something other than assumptions about what wild animals do due to assumptions about what is and isn't natural. I do not object to the idea that wild animals do not exhibit homosexuality. I have no idea whether they do. I found a study on sheep where homosexual sheep were identified, but perhaps those particular sheep were very fond of clover. I have no idea. > Anyway, i was just defending Ishtr's right to raise the question. Did someone question it? >We > all know you're thorough, but should your self-admitted " very quick " > research on the subject have a chilling effect on those who would like > to explore a possibility, one based upon empirical evidence of a > respected scientist, I might add? About cats? Gay cat's rights > already? It's a bit soon, I venture. I think I've been extremely clear that I did a very, very quick and very random look at the three most recent results that came up, every single one of which refuted the high estrogen--> homosexuality theory. I'm very, very open to the possibility that there is evidence that supports this theory, but I would think that if there is, someone advocating the position should find some of it. This is different than what Ishtar was saying. Ishtar was talking about nutrient deficiencies, I thought, and I offered the thought that it was plausible that nutrient deficiencies could be a signal for overpopulation, since someone else mentioned a study indicating overpopulation caused homosexuality in rats. I have no problem with anyone offering either theory. I only responded negatively to the phytoestrogen theory because the last time we had this discussion it was left where I was the only one who had looked for any evidence on the matter and found evidence refuting it and pointed everyone to this gold mine of >350 studies where they could look for something that could support it but the discussion seems to be stuck in the very same spot. > Oh well then, the issue's settled. Go home folks...nothing more to see > here. I didn't say I settled the issue by any means. > Since your search was " very quick " then I would hardly call it > conclusive and a reason to end the discussion if hard evidence cant be > provided. We're not all scientists, although that does give you a > decided advantage... well, somewhat. Sometimes, all that lab work can > really limit the ability to think outside the litter box. In my seventy years of life I have not once stepped into a laboratory. > For example, your second example contradicts your third and only > strengthens the argument that hormones affect sexual behavior. > Additionally, " no consistent association " does not deny " association " > in any number of instances. No the two were not contradictory. One indicated low testosterone and low estrogen levels in the homosexual sheep and the other indicated high in utero testosterone exposure, not high testosterone levels. These are two different things. Both of them contradict the estrogen-->homosexuality concept. The review was saying, in the abstract, that the hormone theories that had come up had been more or less shot down by the research. Like I explicitly said, I have no idea if the review was accurate. This doesn't by any means settle the issue. It should just be enough to challege the assumption that it is obvious that high estrogen and homosexuality would be related. > Plus, Im not touching (no pun intended) any findings about male > homosexuality based upon a " finger length " test. It's just wrong. Heh. LOL. > Only evidence I have is what Pottenger reveals. Seems worth discussing > unless you write him off as a quack. I would love to see the evidence > that says there is no correlation of any type between hormones and > sexual behavior - but I suppose you wish to dissect homosexuality(in > cats, again) from the actual desire for the act? I dunno. Maybe some > boy cats have bad eyesight, or other boy cats are tired of the > streets,or some boy cats are more progressive and enlightened. Who can > say? I'd be interested in hearing more about Pottenger's experiments. I haven't actually read his book. Does he uncover evidence about estrogen levels or phytoestrogens? I was under the impression he was working with malnutrition especially of heat-labile nutrients, which seems quite different. Please share more. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 , Im going to go through my book of Pottengers cats tomorrow and take out the parts where he talks about typical and atypical sexual/gender behavior and physical representation in the book. I do remember him talking about both sexes ( in humans and cats ) comming to a point of degeneration where they were almost physically neutral (women with narrow hips and men obtaining feminine characteristics ). He noted this in cats i believe. Its been a while since i have read it. Till tomorrow then. -Ishtar > > >Then will you please come up with some shred of evidence that > > >increased estrogen or phytoestrogens is actually involved in > > >homosexuality rather than exploiting the intuitive non-science- based > > >association between estrogen, femininity and male homosexuality? >> > > > You mean " actually involved " in sexual *identification*? Are you > > kidding? Hormones and sexuality connected. Absurd, of course! > > What is absurd is that there are over 350 studies on the relationship > between hormones and sexuality indexed for PubMed and that rather than > look into it and see if there is any established connection for a > hormonal cause for homosexuality, those who advocate this position > simply refuse to look for any of it and nevertheless continue to > appeal to popular prejudice about hormones and popular prejudice about > sexuality such as estrogen's association with women and therefore > femininity, and male homosexuality's association with femininity. > > This is not science, but appeals to intuitive concepts that are in > some ways not even correct. Estrogen is essential for bone-building > in men and women, but no one thinks that homosexuality must be caused > by estrogen because homosexuals have such strong bones. But it is > very easy to allude to the common perception that estrogen is a > woman's hormone and that women are feminine and that gay men are > either feminine or woman-like. > > > No one's exploiting young Masterjohn, only exploring.(Forgive me, I > > assume you are very, very young. You may be quite old in fact.) > > It's a discussion an exploration, not an Inquisition. It's an > > academic question in that we are discussing a theoretical connection > > observed by a scientist,you know, like happens in an academic > > environment, one with no lab. > > No, it isn't like a scientific discussion because it keeps persisting > without any attempt to look at the evidence that is already there. I > provided a random sample of studies on homosexuality and hormones on > the other list we had this discussion on that all refuted the notion > of high estrogen causing homosexuality so I would think that it would > be the turn of the folks taking the opposite position to find some > supportive research. > > Obviously you would be completely justified in presenting the > hypothesis if it hadn't already been studied; however, since there are > hundreds of studies on the issue it behooves one purporting to engage > in an acadmemic discussion to do the acadmic thing and look at the > research that's out there. > > To do so isn't to wage an inquisition. It's to follow the normal > process of logical reasoning. > > I'm quite happy to look at some evidence that estrogen is causing > homosexuality, but I think it's quite anti-scientific for folks to > keep repeating that it is probably true because it is so obvious > rather than to look at whether the existing research might support or > refute the notion. > > > Try to keep in mind that we are discussing *cats* not anyone close to > > you or perhaps you, so its not personal. > > I don't have any personal issue at all with homosexuality. If > Pottenger observed homosexuality I think that's interesting and I'd > like to see a good description of it and I'd like to see if it could > be replicated by other researchers. I don't, however, take > Pottenger's assumptions about what cats do in the wild to have any > validity unless someone can explain what type of experience Pottenger > had examining animals in the wild and convince me that this statement > was something other than assumptions about what wild animals do due to > assumptions about what is and isn't natural. > > I do not object to the idea that wild animals do not exhibit > homosexuality. I have no idea whether they do. I found a study on > sheep where homosexual sheep were identified, but perhaps those > particular sheep were very fond of clover. I have no idea. > > > Anyway, i was just defending Ishtr's right to raise the question. > > Did someone question it? > > >We > > all know you're thorough, but should your self-admitted " very quick " > > research on the subject have a chilling effect on those who would like > > to explore a possibility, one based upon empirical evidence of a > > respected scientist, I might add? About cats? Gay cat's rights > > already? It's a bit soon, I venture. > > I think I've been extremely clear that I did a very, very quick and > very random look at the three most recent results that came up, every > single one of which refuted the high estrogen--> homosexuality theory. > I'm very, very open to the possibility that there is evidence that > supports this theory, but I would think that if there is, someone > advocating the position should find some of it. > > This is different than what Ishtar was saying. Ishtar was talking > about nutrient deficiencies, I thought, and I offered the thought that > it was plausible that nutrient deficiencies could be a signal for > overpopulation, since someone else mentioned a study indicating > overpopulation caused homosexuality in rats. > > I have no problem with anyone offering either theory. I only > responded negatively to the phytoestrogen theory because the last time > we had this discussion it was left where I was the only one who had > looked for any evidence on the matter and found evidence refuting it > and pointed everyone to this gold mine of >350 studies where they > could look for something that could support it but the discussion > seems to be stuck in the very same spot. > > > Oh well then, the issue's settled. Go home folks...nothing more to see > > here. > > I didn't say I settled the issue by any means. > > > Since your search was " very quick " then I would hardly call it > > conclusive and a reason to end the discussion if hard evidence cant be > > provided. We're not all scientists, although that does give you a > > decided advantage... well, somewhat. Sometimes, all that lab work can > > really limit the ability to think outside the litter box. > > In my seventy years of life I have not once stepped into a laboratory. > > > For example, your second example contradicts your third and only > > strengthens the argument that hormones affect sexual behavior. > > Additionally, " no consistent association " does not deny " association " > > in any number of instances. > > No the two were not contradictory. One indicated low testosterone and > low estrogen levels in the homosexual sheep and the other indicated > high in utero testosterone exposure, not high testosterone levels. > These are two different things. Both of them contradict the > estrogen-->homosexuality concept. The review was saying, in the > abstract, that the hormone theories that had come up had been more or > less shot down by the research. Like I explicitly said, I have no > idea if the review was accurate. This doesn't by any means settle the > issue. It should just be enough to challege the assumption that it is > obvious that high estrogen and homosexuality would be related. > > > Plus, Im not touching (no pun intended) any findings about male > > homosexuality based upon a " finger length " test. It's just wrong. Heh. > > LOL. > > > Only evidence I have is what Pottenger reveals. Seems worth discussing > > unless you write him off as a quack. I would love to see the evidence > > that says there is no correlation of any type between hormones and > > sexual behavior - but I suppose you wish to dissect homosexuality (in > > cats, again) from the actual desire for the act? I dunno. Maybe some > > boy cats have bad eyesight, or other boy cats are tired of the > > streets,or some boy cats are more progressive and enlightened. Who can > > say? > > I'd be interested in hearing more about Pottenger's experiments. I > haven't actually read his book. Does he uncover evidence about > estrogen levels or phytoestrogens? I was under the impression he was > working with malnutrition especially of heat-labile nutrients, which > seems quite different. Please share more. > > Chris > > -- > The Truth About Cholesterol > Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: > http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2007 Report Share Posted February 14, 2007 Some amazonian tribes practice homosexuality before marriage as a norm. Ancient Greeks practiced homosexuality as a norm These groups have/had a better diet than most modern heterosexuals too Re: Homosexuality in Primitives Membeers of many primitive groups exhibit homosexuality at different points in their lives. They are not eating anywhere nearly as degenerate a diet as many heterosexuals in our society. > > > If you have ever read Pottengers cats you will > know that animals fed optimal diets exibit typical > sexual characteristics and behavior. > > Pottenger noted the more degenerated the cats became > their sexual behavior became unnatural. > > Anyone have any thoughts on this? > > > > ishtr > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2007 Report Share Posted February 14, 2007 I think a main problem of looking for studies that prove any sort of theory about the causes of homosexuality are that the scientist would receive the same treatment Ishtar and Jane have, that is they would be harrassed for looking into it. Did you know there is a PR firm that handles issues of homosexuality and writes threatening letters to any media that comes out with anything about homosexuality that may possibly be damaging to the interests of the gay community? They were one of the examples I read when I was looking up clipping services - those businesses whose job it is to search all media for any mention of their client's interests whether it be business or other, mainly to keep anything negative from appearing without an apology and retraction. > ALOT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2007 Report Share Posted February 14, 2007 On 2/14/07, haecklers <haecklers@...> wrote: > I think a main problem of looking for studies that prove any sort of > theory about the causes of homosexuality are that the scientist would > receive the same treatment Ishtar and Jane have, that is they would be > harrassed for looking into it. I know a few others have made sarcastic comments, but if you're referring to anything I might have said, the sole extent of my " harassing " of Jane for the comments on hormones was to say that there are over 350 peer-reviewed studies on the subject, some published in journals with names like " The Journal of Homosexuality. " I have no doubt that the subject is more politically charged than many others but I do not understand why anyone would speak as if there was no study of the subject when there are in fact hundreds of studies. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2007 Report Share Posted February 14, 2007 Ishtar, > Im going to go through my book of Pottengers cats > tomorrow and take out the parts where he talks about > typical and atypical sexual/gender behavior and > physical representation in the book. Allright cool. I should have read the book myself, but just have never gotten around to it. > I do remember him talking about both sexes ( in humans > and cats ) comming to a point of degeneration where > they were almost physically neutral (women with narrow > hips and men obtaining feminine characteristics ). > He noted this in cats i believe. Its been a while > since i have read it. That's quite a different phenomenon from homoesexuality. It could be genetic disorders from malnutrition-induced errors in the division of reproductive cells, as that sounds pretty similar to some such disorders in humans. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2007 Report Share Posted February 14, 2007 Hi , > Some amazonian tribes practice homosexuality before marriage as a norm. > Ancient Greeks practiced homosexuality as a norm > These groups have/had a better diet than most modern heterosexuals too Good points. It would be interesting, though, to see how this might differ in other animals. Human sexuality is very different from animal sexuality in some respects, especially the dissociation between sexuality and reproduction that we have experienced. Many female animals, for example, will not have sex except when they are fertile, whereas humans will. And we have also culturized and emotionalized sexuality. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2007 Report Share Posted February 14, 2007 On 2/14/07, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote: > Good points. It would be interesting, though, to see how this might > differ in other animals. Human sexuality is very different from > animal sexuality in some respects, especially the dissociation between > sexuality and reproduction that we have experienced. Many female > animals, for example, will not have sex except when they are fertile, > whereas humans will. And we have also culturized and emotionalized > sexuality. After Nila's comments, maybe I just think this because I don't have any pets. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2007 Report Share Posted February 14, 2007 I thought this was supposed to be a 'scientific' discussion, but some of these replies have taken the cream for opinions. I wonder why we dont just all jump in biting and aiming for the jugular? aswell as adding our personal fantasies while we are at it. Sita Nila <dharmaworker@...> wrote: Well, since you can offer your view that homosexuality is a disorder possibly caused by malnutrition, I feel it's necessary to offer my own conclusions on this subject. Hermaphrodites and transgendered and homosexual individuals are the physical manifestation of a stage of evolution toward what we truly are at the soul level...both male and female at the same time. Angels are hermaphrodites, neither male nor female exclusively. Gender-blending is the beginning of the end of duality and a sign of higher levels of evolution and enlightenment. Higher Power consists of both masculine and feminine energy, and as we spiritually evolve, we get closer and closer to that, and find that we are attracted to another's soul energy, not their plumbing. Just my opinion. And Pottenger simply didn't know about the wild animal kingdom, as few people did back in a day when we couldn't observe them with hidden cameras and mics like we now get such a kick out of on Meerkat Manor. Now we know that without a doubt, homosexual behavior exists throughout the animal kingdom in various ways. And pottenger didn't really know cats very well if he didn't know their proclivity for spending long, lazy afternoons having oral sex with members of their own gender. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2007 Report Share Posted February 14, 2007 Yes I agree human sexuality does differ from animal sexuality Interestingly though Bonobo apes which are our nearest relatives practice all types of sexuality including homosexuality http://dannyreviews.com/h/Bonobo.html This is an interesting read. Re: Re: Homosexuality in Primitives Hi , > Some amazonian tribes practice homosexuality before marriage as a norm. > Ancient Greeks practiced homosexuality as a norm > These groups have/had a better diet than most modern heterosexuals too Good points. It would be interesting, though, to see how this might differ in other animals. Human sexuality is very different from animal sexuality in some respects, especially the dissociation between sexuality and reproduction that we have experienced. Many female animals, for example, will not have sex except when they are fertile, whereas humans will. And we have also culturized and emotionalized sexuality. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2007 Report Share Posted February 14, 2007 WOW! This has become a VERY heated argument. This is my first comment to this discussion, but I have read most of the comments made by Ishcar, Jane, and and everyone else. If I'm not mistaken, the argument is whether nutrition plays a role in homosexual behavior. I believe nutrition COULD play a role in homosexual behavior but I believe it goes BEYOND that. I've seen a lot of comments about past primitives and society's practicing homosexuality. That's a very good point. Homosexuality is NOT a NEW, MODERN " practice " . In the Bible (I'm a Christian), the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were practicing sodomy(homosexual behavior). It has been " practiced " for thousands of years even when these people were eating " pristine " diets. I don't believe homosexuals are physically malnourished but SPRITUALLY and MENTALLY malnourished. And nutrition can play a role in that TO AN EXTENT. These are some STRONG comments but I'm not trying to do any " gay bashing " because Christ loves and died for ALL sinners, including homosexuals. Homosexuality is NOT natural behavior. " Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient. " Romans 1: 24-28 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2007 Report Share Posted February 14, 2007 haecklers/ishtar, list: Interesting about the PR firm. There's big money behind the movement for acceptability. There is another firm Steptoe Assoc. which keeps tax free lawyers on staff to represent LBGTs (for free) if the case can serve the cause. They are big contributors to the Oates/Schrum Awards, D-Senator Kennedy, Mass. being a winner and poster child, along with the NEA (National Education Admin, not government!), which gets the Lesbian Bisexual Gay Transgender (LBGT) acceptability info into second grade public classrooms with taxpayer money. If such information was the intent of the original post, it serves both sides equaly. However, back to the subject..... I would like to see constructive input on the list concerning the original post regarding diet which might influence body chemistry, metabolism and or hormone levels, as well as corrective diets which might enhance the natural act of procreation resulting in normal children who are capable of becoming parents themselves. I fail to see the point of homosexuals responding negatively, as their personal choice in the act of sex will not result in children. Childbirth/procreation,being sacred, should not become confused with or blocked by the subject of behaviour that is not the norm by the overwhelming majority of humans when the original question was about dietary practices affecting our offspring. I'm amazed how quickly the subject of diet affecting an unborn child's sexual characteristics could cause such a heterophobic and narcissistic outburst. After all, normal and natural sex is how we all got here to begin with and is how the human race will survive into the future. Should homosexuals on this list choose to share nutritional information they have, I welcome it. I do not enjoy filibusters and side track posts which obscure the subject and unfairly accuse and attack the poster. C R In a message dated 2/14/2007 3:46:13 PM Central Standard Time, lovely.ishtar@... writes: > Actually, maybe...nevermind. Obviously this group > isnt an open forum to discuss things scientifically. > Aparently there are questions here that are > not allowed to be raised. > > I feel i worded the questoin quite respectfully > i might add, but again the question is obviously > not allowed. And questions that are not allowed > to be asked or researched will never be answered. > > Sexuality should be researched and studied imo. > > Oh and for the record, > > i dont apreciate having a question of mine that > had no malice behind it attacked , twisted and > then turned back at me to call me a bigot. > > very nice people, the lot of you. > > -Lovely In a message dated 2/14/2007 7:23:37 AM Central Standard Time, haecklers@... writes: > I think a main problem of looking for studies that prove any sort of > theory about the causes of homosexuality are that the scientist would > receive the same treatment Ishtar and Jane have, that is they would be > harrassed for looking into it. Did you know there is a PR firm that > handles issues of homosexuality and writes threatening letters to any > media that comes out with anything about homosexuality that may > possibly be damaging to the interests of the gay community? They were > one of the examples I read when I was looking up clipping services - > those businesses whose job it is to search all media for any mention of > their client's interests whether it be business or other, mainly to > keep anything negative from appearing without an apology and retraction. > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2007 Report Share Posted February 14, 2007 Kilroy, as im going through my pottengers cats, A resounding-Yes! this was a sign of degeneration in the females! They became more masculine, more violent , and actually dangerous to be around. The males became feminine, and docile. This is going to take a while but im going to type out anything i find of interest, i wont be able to until later t hough. ishtar > Kind of off the subject but something I have been wondering about for some time. > Can too much estrogen make females more masculine? > Reading about how much estrogen type compounds we are consuming daily, from soy, from plastics, from pesticides, dairy, and God knows what they put in our meat, it sure seems to me, as a woman of almost 47 years that women are getting more agressive and men are almost getting feminine > I have noticed over the last 4 or 5 years that most drivers who are speeding and driving reckless are young women. Most Sunday driversare men. I see more women driving and men in the passenger seat, which wasn't seen in my time. Women are getting much more in your face and lacking what used to be considered the normal social graces, whereas men, who used to take pride in being the bread winners are now happy to live at home with thier parents till thier 40's or longer or sponge off thier girlfriends. Things that would have not been seen 30 years ago. Some of this I'm sure is social, things that are being taught in school, style changes, things they see on tv, etc. But I can't believe in my time I have seen such a shift, plus men preening themselves, almost like women. Maybe I'm just an ancient relic but I have to wonder what all these hormones are doing to both the males and females and if there is any correlation. And if so I wonder what the young men and women will be like 50 years from now. > Lorie > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2007 Report Share Posted February 14, 2007 Actually, maybe...nevermind. Obviously this group isnt an open forum to discuss things scientifically. Aparently there are questions here that are not allowed to be raised. I feel i worded the questoin quite respectfully i might add, but again the question is obviously not allowed. And questions that are not allowed to be asked or researched will never be answered. Sexuality should be researched and studied imo. Oh and for the record, i dont apreciate having a question of mine that had no malice behind it attacked , twisted and then turned back at me to call me a bigot. very nice people, the lot of you. -Lovely ----------------------o > Kilroy, as im going through my pottengers cats, > > > A resounding-Yes! this was a sign of degeneration in the females! > They became more masculine, more violent , and actually dangerous > to be around. The males became feminine, and docile. > > This is going to take a while but im going to type out > anything i find of interest, i wont be able to until > later t hough. > > > ishtar > > Kind of off the subject but something I have been wondering about > for some time. > > Can too much estrogen make females more masculine? > > Reading about how much estrogen type compounds we are consuming > daily, from soy, from plastics, from pesticides, dairy, and God knows > what they put in our meat, it sure seems to me, as a woman of almost > 47 years that women are getting more agressive and men are almost > getting feminine > > I have noticed over the last 4 or 5 years that most drivers who are > speeding and driving reckless are young women. Most Sunday > driversare men. I see more women driving and men in the passenger > seat, which wasn't seen in my time. Women are getting much more in > your face and lacking what used to be considered the normal social > graces, whereas men, who used to take pride in being the bread > winners are now happy to live at home with thier parents till thier > 40's or longer or sponge off thier girlfriends. Things that would > have not been seen 30 years ago. Some of this I'm sure is social, > things that are being taught in school, style changes, things they > see on tv, etc. But I can't believe in my time I have seen such a > shift, plus men preening themselves, almost like women. Maybe I'm > just an ancient relic but I have to wonder what all these hormones > are doing to both the males and females and if there is any > correlation. And if so I wonder what the young men and women will > be like 50 years from now. > > Lorie > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2007 Report Share Posted February 14, 2007 wacko alert -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: craicker@... > haecklers/ishtar, list: > Interesting about the PR firm. There's big money behind the movement > for acceptability. There is another firm Steptoe Assoc. which keeps tax free > lawyers on staff to represent LBGTs (for free) if the case can serve the cause. > They are big contributors to the Oates/Schrum Awards, D-Senator Kennedy, Mass. > being a winner and poster child, along with the NEA (National Education > Admin, not government!), which gets the Lesbian Bisexual Gay Transgender (LBGT) > acceptability info into second grade public classrooms with taxpayer money. If > such information was the intent of the original post, it serves both sides > equaly. > However, back to the subject..... I would like to see constructive > input on the list concerning the original post regarding diet which might > influence body chemistry, metabolism and or hormone levels, as well as > corrective > diets which might enhance the natural act of procreation resulting in normal > children who are capable of becoming parents themselves. I fail to see the point > of homosexuals responding negatively, as their personal choice in the act of > sex will not result in children. > > Childbirth/procreation,being sacred, should not become confused with or > blocked by the subject of behaviour that is not the norm by the overwhelming > majority of humans when the original question was about dietary practices > affecting > our offspring. I'm amazed how quickly the subject of diet affecting an unborn > child's sexual characteristics could cause such a heterophobic and > narcissistic outburst. After all, normal and natural sex is how we all got here > to begin > with and is how the human race will survive into the future. > > Should homosexuals on this list choose to share nutritional information they > have, I welcome it. I do not enjoy filibusters and side track posts which > obscure the subject and unfairly accuse and attack the poster. C R > In a message dated 2/14/2007 3:46:13 PM Central Standard Time, > lovely.ishtar@... writes: > > > > Actually, maybe...nevermind. Obviously this group > > isnt an open forum to discuss things scientifically. > > Aparently there are questions here that are > > not allowed to be raised. > > > > I feel i worded the questoin quite respectfully > > i might add, but again the question is obviously > > not allowed. And questions that are not allowed > > to be asked or researched will never be answered. > > > > Sexuality should be researched and studied imo. > > > > Oh and for the record, > > > > i dont apreciate having a question of mine that > > had no malice behind it attacked , twisted and > > then turned back at me to call me a bigot. > > > > very nice people, the lot of you. > > > > -Lovely > > > > In a message dated 2/14/2007 7:23:37 AM Central Standard Time, > haecklers@... writes: > > > > I think a main problem of looking for studies that prove any sort of > > theory about the causes of homosexuality are that the scientist would > > receive the same treatment Ishtar and Jane have, that is they would be > > harrassed for looking into it. Did you know there is a PR firm that > > handles issues of homosexuality and writes threatening letters to any > > media that comes out with anything about homosexuality that may > > possibly be damaging to the interests of the gay community? They were > > one of the examples I read when I was looking up clipping services - > > those businesses whose job it is to search all media for any mention of > > their client's interests whether it be business or other, mainly to > > keep anything negative from appearing without an apology and retraction. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2007 Report Share Posted February 14, 2007 you asked for some research on the possible effects of estrogen as a possible contributor to homosexuality. After the response I received from you for just suggesting that we allow research on this subject to be presented on the other board that this came up on, I wanted to stay out of this one, since it was going the same way with people attacking those who dare suggest we review the possibilities as " bigots " (I acknowledge that was not from you). Here goes anyway: It is interesting that we can look into all other sorts of effects from the food and chemicals we consume in our lives, including weight (a proven prejudice that results in lack of employment, lower earnings, social scorn, name-calling, etc. for those that just appear to be out of the norm-and there is no way to " hide " it- size is the first thing anyone sees and many prejudice people create an opinion with out any background information, no matter what the cause, at first sight), and every other area of our Human existence, but this one. Does it ever occur to those upset by the very suggestion we consider this question, that those who are homosexual, bi-sexual or feel they have those tendencies, may include any one who has asked these questions and wants to know for themselves why they feel that way? These questions may not hold the answers at all, we may eliminate them as even the slightness contributors, but to discourage and even condemn those who are open-minded enough to even consider the possibilities only silences information in the same way corporations try to silence the effects of the chemicals they are eschewing into the environment. If the corporations can keep us from asking the questions, then there will be no reason to do the studies, and we will never have " one shred of evidence " for any of the harmful effects people dared to ask about. About the research, have you read this book? The Estrogen Effect: How Chemical Pollution Is Threatening Our Survival (Paperback) by Deborah Cadbury " Science journalist Cadbury, here expanding her Emmy-winning Horizon program " Assault on the Male, " presents evidence that the widespread use of synthetic chemicals has disrupted our and other animals' natural hormonal systems, in effect flooding them with megadoses of estrogenlike substances that " feminize " males and contribute to breast cancer and myriad other problems. " http://www.amazon.com/Estrogen-Effect-Chemical-Pollution- Threatening/dp/031226707X Here are some other very basic reports of suspected effects from excess estrogen: " Controversial Issues Overview A variety of chemicals have been demonstrated to have effects on hormone systems in animals and humans. Some of the adverse effects observed in animals, and to a lesser extent in humans include: -Reproductive Effects/Birth Defects -Cancer -Low sperm count/Sexual Dysfunction -Heart Disease -Cognitive Disorders *-Sex Reversal* -Premature puberty Some of these chemicals are used in plastics, food production and packaging, paints, pesticides, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, detergents, wetting agents, furniture and carpets. Others are produced as byproducts of pulp and paper production, incineration, fuel combustion in vehicles, and animal production. There are a variety of naturally produced phytochemicals in foods including soybeans, legumes, flax, yams, and clover. Humans and animals also produce hormones naturally and by taking pharmaceuticals such as birth control bills and hormone replacement therapy, which can flow into sewage treatment and drinking water systems " http://www.eeletter.com/cntrvrsl/index.html and: " Environmental Estrogen Endocrine Disruptors What animal effects have ED's been linked to? (3) 1) Abnormal thyroid function and appearance 2) Decreased fertility 3) Decreased hatching success 4) Demasculinization and feminization in males 5) Defeminization and masculinization in females 6) Decreased offspring survival 7) Altered immune system function 8) Altered behavior " http://enhs.umn.edu/5200/estrogen/wildlife.html This is not new news. In high school, we fed estrogen to rosters and got them to act like hens, and visa-versa. (I suppose that would not be allowed today! – that was many years ago) Experiments like this have been going on for many, many years. There are thousands of pages of more research. I am not trying to prove the effect and so do not wish to do a complete research on it, only to help others open their mind and quit calling people hurt-full names, just because they dare to question an effect of a drug that is being pumped into our food supply and the environment. -Unless they have a financial investment in estrogen, and wish to discourage any further research? ~Jan > > Jane,... > Then will you please come up with some shred of evidence that > increased estrogen or phytoestrogens is actually involved in > homosexuality rather than exploiting the intuitive non-science-based > association between estrogen, femininity and male homosexuality? > > When we discussed this elsewhere I did a very quick search of the > issue with the three most recent results in pubmed to find that LOW > estrogen is associated with homosexuality in sheep, high TESTOSTERONE > exposure in utero is associated with homosexuality in male humans > judged by finger length, and a review of the past literature > concluding that no consistent association between hormones and > homosexuality in humans has been established from the research after > hundreds of studies. > > If this is academic, make it academic and let's see some evidence. > > Chris > -- > The Truth About Cholesterol > Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: > http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2007 Report Share Posted February 14, 2007 In a message dated 2/13/2007 11:31:44 PM Central Standard Time, chrismasterjohn@... writes: > In my seventy years of life I have not once stepped into a laboratory. > Seventy! I'm surprised, there have been so many posts referring to your 'young' age. C R Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2007 Report Share Posted February 14, 2007 Jan I was trying to figure out what you were trying to say, and couldn't. Were these citations in support of a theory that excess estrogen causes homosexuality? I don't see how you get from A to B. I CAN see evidence that excess estrogen leads to feminization of males, for example. But no evidence where such feminization then leads to homosexuality. Also, on the charge of bigotry: the way I heard the exhange on the list, it was not to stop the talk of science. It was to challenge the association of " homosexuality " with " unnatural. " That was the value judgement. Think of any other distribution on the bell curve for human attributes. Do we always call the big bump in the middle, " natural, " and the others, " unnatural " ? No, we call the outliers, rare, or, minority, or something. It's not always disease or disorder. If you can talk about sexual preference in a value neutral way, we can listen better to the science. Connie > > > > Jane,... > > Then will you please come up with some shred of evidence that > > increased estrogen or phytoestrogens is actually involved in > > homosexuality rather than exploiting the intuitive non-science- based > > association between estrogen, femininity and male homosexuality? > > > > When we discussed this elsewhere I did a very quick search of the > > issue with the three most recent results in pubmed to find that LOW > > estrogen is associated with homosexuality in sheep, high > TESTOSTERONE > > exposure in utero is associated with homosexuality in male humans > > judged by finger length, and a review of the past literature > > concluding that no consistent association between hormones and > > homosexuality in humans has been established from the research after > > hundreds of studies. > > > > If this is academic, make it academic and let's see some evidence. > > > > Chris > > -- > > The Truth About Cholesterol > > Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: > > http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2007 Report Share Posted February 14, 2007 Ishtar, Thank you. I was wondering about that. I know in horses, even when gelded some will elicit more aggressive behaviour. The vets will give them estrogen injections to calm them down and make them more pliable. I read once estrogen is what makes women docile. I think that's why when we are young we are so willing to please and as we get older and our estrogen goes down we don't worry about peer pressure and take more of an interest in what makes us happy. I truly wonder if that is when some husbands will dump their wives for a more submissive wife. That and the feeling of regaining youth. I was listening to a radio show and over the last few days the guy on there was talking about a news article that was written about what women really want. And most polled, (I don't know the age group though), wanted the Cinderella, happily ever after. They wanted a husband, the white knight so to speak, someone they could count on and take care of them. The radio host then went on to say that he thinks the young women of today have been indoctrinated to thinkthat they are just like men, and shouldn't depend on a man, to have sex as a recreational activity and not get involved, need a career and to put thier studies and career first. I started seeing that in the late 70's when I was in high school. A couple women called in and said that they had all that and were empty inside. It wasn't until they got married, later in life that they saw what they were missing and this is the happiest they have ever been. Then today he had on young women in thier early 20's who don't even want a boyfriend, they " hook up " as they call it, and if one girl gets into a relationship thier friends will leave her. They don't have time for anything but thier schooling and career and want to make a lot of money. They don't have time for " we " (meaning a relationship with another person). Compare that to an old article, I think it was in " Good Housekeeping " from the late 40's of how a woman should have a clean house, have herself made up and make sure the children are well behaved and dinner is on the table when the husband came home. Recreational sex back in that time would have made you a social leper (it did still in the early 70's when I was in school. If we found out a girl had sex in our high school she was an outcast and the " S " word was practically tatooed on her.) So I am wondering if the influence of estrogen compounds on women increased this movement exponentially. I would appreciate anything you can find and print. I am just wondering what has caused such a highly increased shift in the last 40 or so years. I know women have always demanded more rights, and that has been going on back since the suffragetes, but they didn't want to lose thier feminity back then. I don't know if you are old enough to remember the commercial " I can bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, and never let you forget your a man, because I'm a woman. " When I saw that commercial my first thought was, " Lady, you won't have a life, between working, raising children, cooking and cleaning house in a 24 hour day, that will leave you about 4 hours to sleep. " I don't think I was wrong. Lorie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.